Playing with fire...

Discussion in 'Deer Hunting Regulations, Proposals, and Law Debat' started by Justsayin, May 21, 2019.

  1. Justsayin

    Justsayin

    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I've seen this stated over and over but have not seen any data whatsoever that supports this assertion. What data is being used to reach this conclusion? What is the source of this data? Please share.
     
    Trout King and motdean like this.
  2. Tracker83

    Tracker83 Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Location:
    Michigan
    I understood what you were saying, but I still maintain that it is an incorrect hypothesis. When the harvest report is released I believe that we'll see that the total harvest in Montcalm will have stayed roughly the same, yet buck harvest will be up and antlerless harvest down. That doesn't strike me as being indicative that hunters are hesitant to eat venison from there. Also, for any hunters in the CWD zone concerned about their venison, there were plenty of easy ways to get it checked. Between check stations, drop off boxes, and participating taxidermists and processors - getting a clean bill of health for venison was very easy.

    Anecdotally, as someone who spends a significant amount of time hunting and socializing with hunters in Montcalm county - I've encountered very few (if any?) hunters that expressed being concerned about eating diseased meat. In fact, most I know were killing deer in the disease zone and not even getting them checked.

    I will agree with you that hunters as a whole value what's between a deer's ears rather than what's between their legs. Yes, hunters value bucks over does. That fact alone explains why buck kill goes up and doe kill goes down when hunters are given expanded opportunities to kill bucks. Which bets the question - how do we incentivize those buck-centric hunters to kill more does... Hmmm...
     

  3. Justsayin

    Justsayin

    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Buck harvest is limited based on license purchased. One or two. Only the very small percentage of hunters harvesting more than one, were affected by the change to unrestricted on the 2nd tag. You could say that opportunity to harvest a doe on either buck tag expanded opportunities overall to harvest either a buck or doe.

    Anterless harvest is important to sustain reductions in herd density. That is a given. Thinking that the best (only) way to achieve this requires further restricting harvest of bucks is flawed. I think it was LabTech who rightly questioned why pursue an indirect approach (APR) vs a direct approach to achieve antlerless goals? Perhaps we need to think differently.

    Positive motivation would likely yield improved results over restriction based approaches (APR/EAB). For instance, would more hunters harvest does if they received a rebate toward processing/taxidermy for each doe checked? Or additional entries to the Pure Michigan hunt contest? Give an upside vs taking away the primary motivation to hunt deer.
     
    motdean, LabtechLewis and mbrewer like this.
  4. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    8,708
    In other words, when they lifted the APRs, hunters did their part and eliminated those dispersing disease spreaders.

    I hope you gave those hunters a pat on the back and a huge ‘atta boy’. :):D
     
    Trout King likes this.
  5. FREEPOP

    FREEPOP

    Messages:
    26,466
    Likes Received:
    24,738
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    That's rich Mr. there, their, they're. :confused:
     
  6. Dale Malusi

    Dale Malusi Banned

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    469
    Location:
    Bay City Mi
    Experiment in a disease zone? To increase doe harvest?
    There already has been a plan that worked to reduce the doe population in an area of Michigan.
    Unlimited, cheap tags. It thinned out a few counties. Those counties were thinly populated by people.
    Unlike the current CWD area, which is a little more populated with less access.
    Experiment with $2 licenses, that worked.
     
  7. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    13,743
    Location:
    Howell
    Sounds like something I would say, yes. Here's more for you: it's widely accepted in the literature that carrot or stick is the same with respect to behavioral modification and neither truly changes the culture, because once the extrinsic motivator is removed, the behavior reverts. Culture change is a different animal and is influenced by purpose, training, education, and experience.
     
  8. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    13,743
    Location:
    Howell
    How about "Deer Management Cooperators"? What do they value? :);)

    How do you incentivize it? Give hunters inexpensive tags and easy outlets for donating the deer (they might not need). How do you reduce the likelihood of a more desirable outcome in order to compel a supposedly less desirable outcome? Restrict opportunity for the more desirable outcome. But that sure doesn't sound like a recipe for satisfaction in the short run or a sustainable outcome in the long run. Where is the victory?
     
    Trout King, Rut-N-Strut and mbrewer like this.
  9. motdean

    motdean

    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    8,708
    Honestly, I believe that the solution is already in front of us via the CWD Mgt Plan.
    Hire sharpshooters where necessary.

    Anyone have any idea how many deer could have been removed from the trouble areas with the $300,000 or so that they plan on spending on the study to spread disease that can’t measure how much it will spread disease?
     
    Justin, melvvin, Rut-N-Strut and 2 others like this.
  10. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,866
    Likes Received:
    10,964
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    Including what they already have spent, and it hasn't even received a vote. I am thinking QDMA, MUCC, and Schlaybaugh don't have the votes.

    The issue became too HOT, before they slipped it through. They don't want that monkey on their back if it fails, And any chance of plausible denial is gone.

    Big shout out to Commissioner Chris Tracy, for making that unanounced meeting very public knowledge !

    It's good to know that we have at least one Commissioner who is willing to take a stand to defend our Natural Resources
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
    Trout King, motdean and mbrewer like this.
  11. LabtechLewis

    LabtechLewis

    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    13,743
    Location:
    Howell
    Add another guy to the list that "sleeps, eats and drinks QDMA". I knew it...

    :lol:
     
    motdean and jr28schalm like this.
  12. mbrewer

    mbrewer

    Messages:
    6,768
    Likes Received:
    11,705
    Location:
    Halfway to almost there
    A very good post. A fork in the eye for all of us.
     
    LabtechLewis likes this.
  13. jr28schalm

    jr28schalm

    Messages:
    8,305
    Likes Received:
    15,097
    Location:
    macomb
    Dont let dean fool you, He sneaks around the habitat side 2 just like you
     
    motdean and LabtechLewis like this.
  14. rwenglish1

    rwenglish1

    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    145
    Location:
    unknown

    Thats like saying we will not test people for syphllis betwwen the ages of 20/40 for five years.

    Then put out a report that people between 20/40 have no case reports of syphllis.

    But data did show a rise of 50% of the syphllis disease in the testing area!

    If you dont kill bucks of different age structures and have them tested. What kind of bogus test data is going to be achieved by leaving out a major carrier of the disease?
     
  15. G20man

    G20man Banned

    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    Detroit
    If 33% are a year and a half old and 33% are 2.5 and 34% are 3.5+.
    Did we kill enough of each age class.

    Remember. Aprs don't protect all yearlings and 4 on a side isn't very hard to find in the SLP.